Presidential campaign now even more annoying
Posted by Fred on January 8, 2008
This year’s presidential contest is beginning to make me throw up in my mouth a little (yeah, I know how annoying that phrase is, but I can’t think of another one right now). On the plus side, voters in New Hampshire appear poised to stick another dagger in the rotting corpse of Hillary’s campaign. Those tears the other day seemed about as real as Roger Clemens’ denials on 60 Minutes. or more to the point, no more real than Hillary’s depressed and depressing appearance on 60 Minutes with Bill in 1992, or her emotional outbursts about the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy, or her one and only appearance in a pink suit in 1994, or her swings from strong-woman-the-voters-don’t-get to victim and back again. See Jeff Taylor’s rundown on the Reason blog.
That does, however, leave one with Obama, destined to be America’s next motivational-speaker-in-chief. Not sure what to make of Obama, as there’s not a whole lot of there there (yet).
On the other side of the aisle, Mike Huckabee’s star rose after Iowa, but will almost certainly crash again after New Hampshire, whose voters are less impressed by evolution-denying, will-of-God baptist preachers who have compared homosexuality to necrophilia than are their comrades in the Hawkeye State. Ron Paul has always said the right sort of things 9and I’ve never been adverse to throwing away my vote on actual Libertarian party candidates, so why not a libertarianish Republican?) but he never had any real hope of getting the nomination unless a meteor crashed into one of the GOP debates he wasn’t invited to. Plus, some of the seedier side of his newsletter screeds are starting to see the light of day. Old history? Probably. The work of someone other than Paul himself? Maybe. But none of that is relevant to the average voter, who really doesn’t want a President even tangentially associated with claims that Martin Luther King “seduced underage girls and boys” or that “95% of the black males in [Washington, D.C.] are semi-criminal or entirely criminal.”
So where’s that leave someone like me, a fiscally conservative, kind-of-libertarian Hayekian liberal? Rudy Giuliani? John McCain? Mitt Romney? No thanks. It’s just depressing.
Obligatory update: so Hillary won in an “upset.” Given that she had a 12 point lead in New Hampshire three weeks ago, that we’re calling this slim victory an upset is somewhat telling. Of course, NH voters also picked McCain, so who knows what any of this means. I’d still vote for a banana slug over Clinton.
This entry was posted on January 8, 2008 at 4:48 pm and is filed under Politics. Tagged: banana slug, Barack Obama, Campaign 08, Hillary Clinton, Mitt Romney, Politics, Ron Paul, Rudy Giuliani. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
January 8, 2008 at 10:11 pm
The problem of the “expose” on Ron Paul is that it’s false.
I mean c’mon, they claim he has ties to David Duke because a known White supremist contributed to his campaign via a non-discriminitory online donation.
He’s still the guy to promote and vote for. Don’t be a wimp and not vote for sombody who you think might lose.
Here is the best bet for the country:
Ron paul, Kucinich, Obama (even though the health care thing won’t work)
we have to shrink the gov’t otherwise, you, me and our children are going to be screwed even more paying for these worthless thugs to ruin the country.